<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (4) TMI 428 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108537</link>
    <description>A plaint may be amended to proceed against a defendant once the statutory bar under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 has ceased to operate, because the restraint continues only while the protective proceedings remain pending. The intervening period may also be excluded for limitation purposes where the facts support exclusion under section 15(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the claimant&#039;s earlier pursuit of relief supports bona fide conduct under section 21. The amendment was therefore allowed, the limitation objection did not defeat it at that stage, and the amended plaint was directed to be taken on record for adjudication on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:51:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 428 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108537</link>
      <description>A plaint may be amended to proceed against a defendant once the statutory bar under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 has ceased to operate, because the restraint continues only while the protective proceedings remain pending. The intervening period may also be excluded for limitation purposes where the facts support exclusion under section 15(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the claimant&#039;s earlier pursuit of relief supports bona fide conduct under section 21. The amendment was therefore allowed, the limitation objection did not defeat it at that stage, and the amended plaint was directed to be taken on record for adjudication on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>